ARTICLE 12 TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Transcription

1 ARTICLE 12 TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CHAPTER A GENERAL... 9 Section 1 Intent and Authority... 9 A. Intent... 9 B. Authority... 9 Section 2 Definitions... 9 A. Other Definitions... 9 Section 3 Applicability... 9 A. General... 9 B. Credits Against Project Traffic... 9 C. Non-Applicability Local Government Applications Development Order Time Limit Criteria Entitlement Special Events Subsequent or Amendments to Development Orders Vested Rights Exceptions Requirements D. Municipal Determination of Previous Approval Validity Procedures Timing Additional Information Period to File Delivery Appeals Limitation on PBC's Review/Appeal Completion of Previous Approvals E. Municipal Concurrency Management System CHAPTER B STANDARD Section 1 General Section 2 Project Buildout/Five Year Standard A. Buildout Test - Test 1- Part One and Two Part One Intersections Part Two Links B. Five Year Analysis - Test C. Level of Service Standard D. Radius of Development Influence/Project Significance E. Phasing F. Reliance on Assured Road Construction G. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) CHAPTER C TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES Page 1 of 59

2 Section 1 Traffic Impact Study A. Scope B. Criteria Level of Service (LOS) Radii of Development Influence Projected Buildout Period Project Phasing Peak Hours Off-Peak to Peak Season Factors Compliance Professional Services List Site Related Improvements C. Traffic Volume Components Existing Traffic - (Peak Season Peak Hour Traffic) Traffic Generation Traffic Assignment Background Traffic Assured Construction Section 2 Conditions CHAPTER D PROCEDURE Section 1 Required Submission of Impact Study A. Application Procedure B. Review by County Engineer C. No Study Needed Residential Non-Residential Amendments Section 2 Review of Traffic Impact Study A. County Engineer Review B. Municipal Review C. Prohibitions D. Appeals Section 3 Approval of Traffic Impact Study CHAPTER E ENTITLEMENT Section 1 General Section 2 Unincorporated Area Section 3 Incorporated Area Section 4 Discretion of Board CHAPTER F APPEALS Section 1 Board Section 2 Request/Notice Section 3 Hearing of 59

3 A. Burden of Proof B. Reimbursement C. Quorum D. Decision Section 4 Appeal from the TPSAB Section 5 No Impairments of Judicial Rights or Remedies CHAPTER G CONSTRAINED FACILITIES Section 1 Purpose and Intent Section 2 Procedure A. General B. Letter of Intent C. Pre-application Conference D. Amendment Review Section 3 Determination Criteria CHAPTER H MODIFICATION OR ELIMINATION OF LINK OR INTERSECTION Section 1 Application to Modify or Eliminate Adopted Link or Intersection A. Who May Apply B. Contents C. Criteria 32 D. Procedure/Extraordinary Vote CHAPTER I COASTAL RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION Section 1 Intent Section 2 Creation Section 3 Traffic Impact Study Information Section 4 Municipal Levels of Service CHAPTER J TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS (TCMA) Section 1 Intent Section 2 Area Wide Level of Service Section 3 Procedure CHAPTER K TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS (TCEA) Section 1 Intent Section 2 Area Types Section 3 Criteria Section 4 Procedure Section 5 Traffic Impact Study Information of 59

4 CHAPTER L TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT PROMOTE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Section 1 Intent Section 2 Project Types Section 3 Project Location Section 4 Required Provisions to Promote Public Transportation Section 5 Required Traffic Study Section 6 Required Roadway Improvements Section 7 Parking CHAPTER M FIVE-YEAR ROAD PROGRAM Section 1 Intent Section 2 Description of Five-Year Road Program Section 3 Modification of Five-Year Road Program A. Semi-annual Modification of Five-Year Road Program B. Findings Required Prior to Deletion in the Adopted Five-Year Road Program Section 4 Standards Five-Year Road Program A. Funding B. New Fifth Year C. Projects on Schedule Section 5 Effect of Failure of County to Adhere to And Implement its Adopted Five-Year Road Program CHAPTER N METHOD OF PRIORITIZING THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER O PROJECT AGGREGATION Section 1 Applicability Section 2 Aggregation Criteria Section 3 Exceptions Section 4 Procedure Section 5 Traffic Impacts Section 6 Traffic Concurrency Section 7 Aggregation CHAPTER P OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD CRALLS POINT SYSTEM Section 1 Purpose and Intent Section 2 Applicability of 59

5 Section 3 Procedure A. General B. Application Requirements C. Conditions of Approval D. Condition Monitoring E. Substitution of Alternative Strategies or Alteration of Existing Strategy at a Later Date F. Time Limits G. Municipal Review Section 4 Mitigation Strategies A. Strategy 1. Mixed Use Development Around Transit Corridors Applicability Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor B. Strategy 2. Mixed Use Development Around Transit Centers Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring Credit Factor C. Strategy 3. Feeder Transit Service to Rail Stations or Multi-Modal Transit Centers; New Commuter Bus Service; Local Bus/Shuttle Service; Employee Transit Passes Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor D. Strategy 4. Parking Management Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring Credit Factor E. Strategy 5. Ridesharing Programs Qualifying Criteria Monitoring Implementation Timeframe Credit Factor F. Strategy 6. Telecommuting Programs Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring Credit Factor G. Strategy 7. Bicycle Parking Facilities Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring & Enforcement Credit Factor H. Strategy 8. Provide Access Between Developments Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor of 59

6 I. Strategy 9. Provide Access To More Than One Road Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring Credit Factor J. Strategy 10. Low Generation Traffic Sensitive Uses Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring Credit Factor Example K. Strategy 11. Intersection Modifications Strategy Qualifying Criteria Methodology for Analyzing Improvement Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor Pooling Improvement by Multiple Developments Example L. Strategy 12. Grade Separated Interchange Improvement Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor M. Strategy 13. Compressed Work Week/Non-Peak Hour Work Hours Strategy Qualifying Criteria Implementation Timeframe Monitoring and Enforcement Credit Factor N. Strategy 14. Additional Mitigation Fee Payment Strategy Qualifying Criteria/Implementation Timeframe Credit Factor Example Section 5 CRALLS Mitigation Strategies: Point System Methodology A. Calculation to Determine Mitigation B. Example Calculation Impact Mitigation Examples CHAPTER Q PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE PROGRAM Section 1 Purpose and Intent Section 2 Applicability Section 3 General Requirements Section 4 Intergovernmental Coordination Section 5 Application Process Section 6 Determining Proportionate Fair-Share Obligation of 59

7 Section 7 Impact Fee Credit for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation Section 8 Proportionate Fair-Share Agreements Section 9 Appropriation of Fair-Share Revenues CHAPTER R CORRIDOR MASTER PLANS Section 1 General A. Corridor Identification B. Development and Implementation Overview of the Study Process C. Adoption by the County and Affected Municipalities (This space intentionally left blank) 7 of 59

8 (This space intentionally left blank) 8 of 59

9 ARTICLE 12 TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CHAPTER A Section 1 GENERAL Intent and Authority A. Intent The BCC finds that safe, convenient, and orderly flow of vehicular traffic is necessary for the health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the public. It is the intent of this Article to ensure that roadways are in place and adequate to provide a Level of Service (LOS) that will provide safe, convenient, and orderly traffic flow. It is the intent of this Article to implement the goals, objectives, policies, and standards of the Plan by amending and readopting the TPS Ordinance No The BCC finds that the safe, convenient, and orderly flow of traffic will be achieved by the standards set forth herein. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the BCC or other authority with the responsibility of issuing Development Orders from considering traffic, roadway, or Project conditions not specifically required by this Article or which are peculiar to the location, size, configuration, use, or relationship to the area of the proposed Project or the proposed Project itself; and to impose conditions necessary to serve the public interest. B. Authority The BCC has the authority to adopt this Article pursuant to Article VII, Sec. 1(g) and to Article VIII, Sec. 1, Fla. Const., the PBC Charter, F.S et seq., F.S , F.S et seq., and Rule 9-J5, F.A.C. Section 2 Definitions See Art. 1.I, Definitions and Acronyms A. Other Definitions 1. For purposes of this Article, except as specifically provided herein or unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms defined in the Code of PBC, Florida, and the Plan shall have the meaning therein. In the event of a conflict between the Code and the Plan, the Plan shall prevail. The capitalization of defined terms herein is for the reader's convenience only. Failure to capitalize shall not be construed as an intent not to use the term in its defined meaning. Section 3 Applicability A. General 1. Unless otherwise provided herein, this Article shall apply to all Site-Specific Development Order s or any other official action of a Local Government having the effect of permitting the Development of land. 2. Applicability to Incorporated Areas. The PBC Charter provides authorization to the BCC to adopt this Article for roads which are "not the responsibility of any municipality." The major thoroughfare system identified in the Plan includes some roads which are the responsibility of a Municipality. The Charter precludes the applicability of this Article to roads that, while being on the Major Thoroughfare system, are the responsibility of a Municipality. Accordingly, in the case of setting the LOS this Article shall not apply so as to restrict the issuance of Development Orders adding traffic to roads which are the responsibility of a Municipality. B. Credits Against Project Traffic This Section establishes a method for calculating credits against Project Traffic that may apply when seeking to amend a Previously Approved Development Order, or when applying for a Site Specific 9 of 59

10 Development Order on property, which has an existing use. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate the eligibility and the amount of credit for a proposed Project.[Ord ] 1. Any proposed amendment to a Previously Approved Development Order shall receive a credit for Project Traffic subject to the provisions of this Section. The credit shall be calculated by applying current trip generation rates and pass-by rates to the land use or uses previously approved by the Site Specific Development Order. The credit shall be adjusted as necessary to account for changes in traffic distribution resulting from modifications to the Previously Approved Development Order. The credit shall be reduced as applicable based on any subsequent reduction of square footage or number of units built pursuant to master plan or site plan amendment, and in accordance with any subsequent amendment to applicable municipal rules, policies or land development regulations. 2. Any application for a Site Specific Development Order on property on which there is an existing use shall receive a credit against Project Traffic subject to the provisions of this Section. The credit shall be calculated by applying current trip generation rates and pass-by rates that would be generated by the most recent existing use at the time of application. The credit shall be adjusted as necessary to account for changes in traffic distribution as a result of the proposed Project. A proposed Project shall not be eligible for an existing use credit if the structure or land on the property has been discontinued or abandoned for more than five years prior to the time of application. 3. A Project shall be eligible for a 100 percent credit against Project Traffic if the Previously Captured non-residential Project has received CO for interior tenant improvements for at least 80 percent of the gross leasable area for more than five years or the Previously Captured residential Project has received building permits for 80 percent of the units as set forth in the master plan or site plan as applicable. [Ord ] [Ord ] 4. An urban redevelopment project located within a defined and mapped existing urban service area shall not be subject to the standards of Chapter B of this Article, for up to 110 percent of the traffic generation of the previously existing development. The credit shall be calculated by applying current trip generation rates and pass-by rates that would be generated by the most recent existing use at the time of application. The credit shall be adjusted as necessary to account for changes in traffic distribution as a result of the proposed Project. A proposed Project shall not be eligible for an existing use credit if the structure or land on the property has been discontinued or abandoned for more than five years prior to the time of application. [Ord ] C. Non-Applicability 1. Local Government Applications The standards of this Section shall not apply to Local Government-initiated district boundary changes as part of an area-wide review and district boundary-change program, or any district boundary changes to conform with the Local Government Plan which does not authorize Development. 2. Development Order Time Limit Criteria This Section shall not apply to PBC initiated petitions to lower density/intensity under Development Order Time Limit Criteria in Article 2.E, MONITORING, of the Code. Nothing herein shall preclude the review of approvals under Development Order Time Limit Criteria, for consistency with this Section. 3. Entitlement The standards of this Section shall not apply to Site Specific Development Orders not exceeding entitlement densities/intensities established in the Plan or Art. 12.E, Entitlement. 4. Special Events The standards of this Section shall not apply to Site Specific Development Orders issued for special events as described below: a. For purposes of this Section, a special event is an activity which does not exceed three consecutive weeks a year, occurs no more frequently than once a year, and is open to the general public. It includes auto races; Fourth of July activities; parades; and festivals. It does not include recurring events such as baseball games, football games, concerts, races, and the like held in stadiums, amphitheaters, or other permanent facilities even if such facilities are used for special events. Each special event shall constitute a separate special event for purposes of calculating the number of weeks of the event. If the Plan is amended to provide more stringent provisions as to this exception, the Plan shall control. b. For the purposes of this Section, a special part time demand event is a development that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during any calendar year and does not put traffic on the roadway system during the 100 highest traffic hours. 1) The 100 highest traffic hours for the area of the special part-time demand shall be determined by the County Engineer based on information from permanent count stations. 10 of 59

11 2) The development shall not be permitted if the daily traffic generated during a scheduled event has an impact that exceeds five percent of the LOS D Standard Volume on a roadway on the Florida Intrastate Roadway System. 3) The development shall be restricted to areas identified as urban infill, urban redevelopment, existing urban service, or downtown revitalization areas in the Local Government s Comprehensive Plan. 4) A traffic report shall be prepared that identifies the trip generation of the development, the modal split (if any), the location of the development, and the month and time of day of scheduled events. The Development Order for the development shall include monitoring and enforcement provisions restricting the development to the number and timing of the events. 5. Subsequent or Amendments to Development Orders a. Subsequent Implementing Development Orders The standards of this Article shall not apply to Site Specific Development Orders which are subsequent implementing Development Orders to Previously-Approved Site Specific Development Orders which were captured by this Section or Ordinance 90-6 (Traffic Performance Standards Municipal Implementation Ordinance), but which are required by Local Government as part of the Development approved under the captured or Previously-Approved Site Specific Development Order. Examples of these subsequent implementing Site Specific Development Orders are subdivision approvals and building permits issued in a planned unit development (PUD) where the PUD is a Previous Approval or met the requirements of this Article (either directly or through the Traffic Performance Standards Municipal Implementation Ordinance). b. Amendments to Previously-Captured-Approvals Amendments to Site Specific Development Orders which were captured by this Article or Ord (Traffic Performance Standards Municipal Implementation Ordinance) which do not increase the captured Site Specific Development Orders Net Trips or Net Peak Hour Trips on any Link or Major Intersection (including increases resulting from redistribution) shall not be subject to the standards of this Article. For purposes of this determination, the generation rates and capture rates of the captured Site Specific Development Order shall be updated to current generation and capture rates, if applicable, and shall be used to calculate whether there is any increase. If there is an increase, Net Trips shall be subject to the standards of this Article. In making this determination, all parcels or lots in their entirety taken together of any Previously-Captured Approval shall be considered if it was approved as a single Project. [Ord ] 6. Vested Rights Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article to the contrary, the requirements of this Article shall not apply in any manner to impair vested rights established pursuant to Florida law, to the extent that any Project, or portion thereof, is vested as against the requirements of this Article. 7. Exceptions The standards of this Article shall not apply to Site Specific Development Orders for the Coastal Residential use as set forth in Article 12.I, COASTAL RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION and the special events, as set forth in Article 12.A.3.C.4, Special Events. [Ord ] 8. Requirements The exceptions to the standards of this Article (LOS Standards) do not obviate the requirement to report the Site Specific Development Order, or provide the Traffic Impact Study (where required), to the County Engineer. D. Municipal Determination of Previous Approval 1. Validity Only Valid Site Specific Development Orders which meet the definition of Previous Approval shall be considered Valid Previous Approvals. 2. Procedures The Municipality shall establish procedures for determining what Previous Approvals have been granted. The procedures shall be at the sole discretion of the Municipality. The Municipality shall send its determination as to each Previous Approval to the Traffic Division of the County Engineer within 15 days of its determination. 3. Timing The County Engineer shall have ten working days, exclusive of tolled days, from the receipt of the determination of the Municipality to review and determine if additional information is required. 4. Additional Information 11 of 59

12 If the County Engineer requests additional information, he shall have 30 days, exclusive of tolled days, from the receipt of the additional information to notify the property owner and Municipality as to, and file, an action for judicial review. 5. Period to File The Municipality's determination shall not be effective, and the period to file an action shall not commence, until either: (1) the County Engineer has not requested additional information within the ten day period or, (2) if additional information is requested, the County Engineer has received all additional information requested. 6. Delivery The documents sent pursuant to Article 12.A.3.D.2, Procedures and Article 12.A.3.D.4, Additional Information, shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand delivered. 7. Appeals The appeal or review shall be to a Court of competent jurisdiction and may be filed by any substantially affected person, including any Local Government. 8. Limitation on PBC's Review/Appeal a. The time frames set forth in Article 12.A.3.D.3, Timing, and Article 12.A.3.D.4, Additional Information, above as to PBC are jurisdictional. Any failure on the part of PBC to timely send the notification shall result in the municipality's determination being conclusive and binding. b. Clerical errors in long-standing otherwise Valid Site Specific Development Orders on which development commenced prior to February 1, 1990 shall not be grounds for appeal or review. c. Any Municipal determination that there is a Previous Approval on a Lot upon which building construction or infrastructure improvements have been made within the last three years which are consistent with the Development Order considered to be the Previous Approval shall not be appealed by PBC. d. Any Municipal determination that a Valid Site Specific Development Order (as determined by PBC) issued prior to February 1, 1990, and within three years prior to February 1, 1990, is a Previous Approval and shall not be appealed by PBC. 9. Completion of Previous Approvals The Municipality shall complete its review and determination of all properties within its jurisdiction as to Previous Approvals by July 1, E. Municipal Concurrency Management System A Municipality may, with the consent of PBC, enter into an intergovernmental agreement with PBC whereby the Municipality, by a concurrency management ordinance, implements the standards and requirements of this Article at different points in the land development approval process than those set forth in this Article. The agreement and ordinance shall ensure that all Development is subject to the standards and requirements of this Article, and that data is forwarded to PBC for capacity management and review consistent with this Article. CHAPTER B Section 1 STANDARD General There is hereby established a TPS for all Major Thoroughfares within PBC. Except as specifically provided in this Article, no Site Specific Development Order shall be issued for a proposed Project which would violate this standard. This standard consists of two tests. The first test relates to the Buildout Period of the Project and requires that the Project not add Traffic in the Radius of Development Influence which would have Total Traffic exceeding the Adopted LOS at the end of the Buildout Period. The second test relates to the evaluation of traffic five years in the future and requires that the Project not add Traffic in the Radius of Development Influence which would have Total Traffic exceeding the Adopted LOS at the end of the Five-Year Analysis Period. Total Traffic for Test 2 is based in part upon Background Traffic information from the TPS Database. Where a CRALLS service volume has been adopted, those volumes shall apply. Where a CRALLS service volume has been adopted for one or more of the LINKs that constitute the legs of the intersection, the allowable service volume for the intersection shall be calculated as follows: Allowable CRALLS intersection volume = [sum of CRALLS Link volume(s) or LINK LOS D volumes (for those LINKS without CRALLS), whichever is applicable, for all legs of intersection/(sum of Link LOS D volume(s) for all legs of intersection)] x For Test 2 purposes, LOS E volumes and a 1500 critical sum shall be used in the preceding formula for determination of the allowable CRALLS intersection volumes. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] Section 2 Project Buildout/Five Year Standard 12 of 59

13 A. Buildout Test - Test 1- Part One and Two No Project shall be approved for Site Specific Development Order unless it can be shown to satisfy the requirement of Parts One and Two of Test 1 as outlined below. [Ord ] 1. Part One Intersections This Part requires analysis of Major Intersections, within or beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project s traffic is significant on a Link within the Radius of Development of Influence. For purposes of this Part One, Major Intersections also includes intersections of a Major Thoroughfare and a non-thoroughfare road or other point of access where: 1) the intersection is signalized or where projected traffic volumes warrant a signal; and 2) the non-thoroughfare approach is projected to carry at least 200 two-way, peak hour trips and, 3) the non-thoroughfare approach represents 20 percent or more of the intersection critical sum volume. [Ord ] a. The following major intersections shall be analyzed: [Ord ] 1) The Major Intersections in each direction nearest to the point at which the Project s Traffic enters each Project Accessed Link, and where the Project Traffic entering or exiting the intersection from/to the Project Accessed Link is significant. The intersections analyzed shall not exceed two intersections per Project Accessed Link. [Ord ] [Ord ] 2) For the Projects on Southern Boulevard, the Urban Interchange(s) when it is the nearest Major Intersection to the point at which the Project s Traffic enters the Project Accessed Link and when the Project Traffic entering and exiting the intersection is significant. For purposes of determining significance of the traffic entering and exiting the interchange, the traffic entering and exiting the ramps shall be considered against a directional ramp LOS D Service Volume of 2,100 vehicles per hour per lane. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] 3) All Major Intersections where the Project Traffic comprises 10 percent or more of the Total Traffic on at least one approach. [Ord ] [Ord ] b. For signalized intersections that are not part of the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS, TRIP funded facilities, or grade-separated interchanges, analyze the Major Intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1985 Planning Methodology (CMA). In the event that one or more intersections exceed the Critical Volume threshold identified in Table 12.B.2.C-2 1B, are gradeseparated interchanges, or the intersections are part of the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS, or TRIP funded facilities, the applicant shall conduct the intersection analysis of those intersections using the HCM Operational Analysis using the most recent version of the HCM. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] 1) The HCM CMA and Operational Analysis shall comply with the default input values published by the County Engineer no more frequently than twice per year. Revisions to the input values may be made subject to approval by the County Engineer to reflect actual or projected field conditions where substantial differences from the published values can be demonstrated. [Ord ] 2) If the intersection average total delay or the Critical Volume is at or below the thresholds identified in Table 12.B.2.C-2 1B, the Project passes Part One of Test 1 and continues with the Part Two Link Analysis. If the intersection average total delay or the Critical Volume exceeds the thresholds identified in Table 12.B.2.C-2 1B, the Project fails Part One of Test 1. [Ord ] [Ord ] c. For unsignalized Major Intersections, the intersections shall be analyzed using the most recent version of the HCM Unsignalized Intersection Analysis and all minor movements of Rank 2 or higher shall operate at LOS E or better. In addition, a signal warrant analysis with Total Traffic for the intersection may be required by the County Engineer. [Ord ] 1) If a minor movement is not projected to operate at LOS E or better, then the applicant may make intersection improvements in accordance with applicable Palm Beach County or FDOT Design Standards to satisfy the LOS standard. If these improvements require signalization of the intersection and if signalization is expected to be warranted at any time up to 24 months after the Project s final certificate of occupancy, then the Project may also be required to fund signalization. If, with these improvements, all minor movements of Rank 2 or higher will operate at LOS E or better, the Project passes Part One of Test One. [Ord ] 13 of 59

14 2) If no geometric intersection improvements are determined to be feasible by the County Engineer, then the applicant shall agree to fund signalization of the intersection if warranted at any time up to 24 months after the Project s final certificate of occupancy. If the applicant is not willing to agree to fund signalization of the intersection if warranted, the Project fails Part One of Test One. [Ord ] 2. Part Two Links a. This Part requires analysis of Links and Major Intersections as necessary within or beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project s traffic is significant on a Link within the Radius of Development influence. The Total Traffic in the peak hour on the Link shall be compared to applicable thresholds in Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A, The LOS D Link Service Volumes, Peak Hour Traffic; peak direction volume threshold. The applicable facility class for each Link shall be determined on the basis of the number of traffic signals per mile anticipated by the County Engineer to be in place by the buildout time frame of the proposed Project being evaluated. Additionally, for all Links where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold and for all Links where the uninterrupted flow service volume has been utilized, the Major Intersections on each end of the Link shall be analyzed. If the Link is on Southern Boulevard, the at-grade intersection created by an Urban Interchange shall not be considered the intersection at the end of the link since the intersection is actually not on Southern Boulevard. The Project shall include the next intersection with Southern Boulevard for analysis and compliance. [Ord ] The project shall pass Part Two of Test One if: [Ord ] 1) The Total Traffic peak hour directional volume on the Link is less than the applicable thresholds in Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A: LOS D Link Service Volumes; and, [Ord ] [Ord ] 2) For Links utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volume, the intersections are below the 1,400 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-2, 1B: LOS D Intersection Thresholds. [Ord ] For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes: where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold, where the Buildout period is five years or fewer, and where the intersections at the end of the failing link are less than or equal to the 1,400 Critical Volume or less than or equal to the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-2,1B a more detailed analysis as outlined in the Optional Analysis may be completed to demonstrate compliance with Part Two. [Ord ] For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes: where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold and where the Buildout period is greater than five years or where the intersections at the end of the failing link are greater than the 1,400 Critical Volume or greater than the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-2,1B, the Project fails Part Two of Test One. [Ord ] For Links utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes, where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold, the Project fails Part Two of Test One. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] b. Optional Analysis - The HCM Arterial Analysis Operational methodology shall be conducted. For these Links, the Project shall demonstrate that the Total Traffic peak hour, directional volumes do not result in an average speed on the Segment that is lower than the speed thresholds for LOS D as defined in Table 12.B.2.C-3, 1C: LOS D. Speed Thresholds. If the speed is equal to or higher than the LOS D speed threshold, then the Project shall pass Part Two of Test 1. If the speed is lower than the LOS D speed threshold, then the Project fails Part Two of Test One. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] c. The Applicant may make link or intersection improvements in accordance with published Palm Beach County or Florida Department of Transportation Design and Traffic Engineering Standards, as applicable, in order to satisfy Part Two of Test One. [Ord ] B. Five Year Analysis - Test 2 No project shall be approved for a Site Specific Development Order unless it can be shown to satisfy the requirements of Test 2. This test requires analysis of Links and Major Intersections as necessary within or beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project s traffic is Significant on a Link within the Radius of Development Influence. This analysis shall address the Total Traffic anticipated to be in 14 of 59

15 place at the end of the fifth year of the Florida Department of Transportation Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program in effect at the time of traffic analysis submittal. The existing road network and State and County Five-Year Road Program improvements with construction scheduled to commence before the end of the Five-Year Analysis Period shall be the Test 2 Road Network assumed in the analysis. [Ord ] [Ord ] 1. The Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes shall be compared to the applicable thresholds in Table 12.B.2.C-4 2A LOS E Link Service Volumes. The applicable facility class for each Link shall be determined on the basis of the number of traffic signals per mile anticipated to be in place at the 5- year analysis time frame. Additionally, for all Links where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold and for all Links where the uninterrupted flow service volume has been utilized, the Major Intersections on each end of the Link shall be analyzed. If the Link is on Southern Boulevard, the at-grade intersection created by an Urban Interchange shall not be considered the intersection at the end of the Link since the intersection is actually not on Southern Boulevard. The Project shall include the next intersection with Southern Boulevard for analysis and compliance. The Project shall pass Test 2 if: [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] a. the Total Traffic peak hour directional volume on the Link is less than the applicable thresholds in Table 12.B.2.C-4 2A; and [Ord ] [Ord ] b. For Links utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volume, the intersections are below the 1,500 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-5, 2B: LOS E Intersection Thresholds. [Ord ] For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes, where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold but the intersections at the end of the failing link are below the 1,500 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-5, 2B a more detailed analysis as outlined in the Optional Analysis may be completed to demonstrate compliance with Test Two. Otherwise, the Project fails Test Two. [Ord ] 2. Optional Analysis - The HCM Arterial Analysis Operational methodology shall be conducted. For these links, the project shall demonstrate that the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes do not result in an average speed on the Segment that is lower than the speed thresholds for LOS E as defined in Table 12.B.2.C-6 2C. If the speed is lower than LOS E, then the project fails Test 2. If the speed is equal to or higher than the LOS E speed threshold, then the project shall pass Test 2. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] 3. The Applicant may make link or intersection improvements in accordance with published Palm Beach County or Florida Department of Transportation Design and Traffic Engineering Standards, as applicable, in order to satisfy Test 2. [Ord ] C. Level of Service Standard 1. The LOS D Standard Service Volumes as to Average Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Traffic two-way and Peak Season, Peak Direction (Test 1 for Links are set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A: LOS D Link Service Volumes. The LOS D thresholds relative to intersections are set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-2 1B: LOS D Intersection Thresholds. The LOS D threshold associated with the HCM arterial analysis in terms of speed is provided in Table 12.B.2.C-3 1C: LOS D Speed Thresholds. 2. The LOS E Standard Service Volumes for Average Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Traffic two-way and Peak Season, Peak Direction (Test 2 for Links) are set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-4 2A. LOS E Link Service Volumes, The LOS E thresholds relative to intersections are set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-5 2B, LOS E Intersection Thresholds. The LOS E thresholds associated with the HCM arterial analysis in terms of speed are provided in Table 12.B.2.C-6 2.C, LOS E Speed Thresholds. [Ord ] 3. For roads on the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS, and TRIP-funded facilities, the LOS standard shall be LOS D in Urban Areas, LOS C in Transitioning Urban Areas, Urban Areas, or Communities; and LOS B in Rural Areas as adopted by the FDOT. This standard must be met for roadways on a peak hour/peak direction basis, in accordance with the methodologies specified in FDOT Rule [Ord ] 4. A different service volume may be adopted for a specific road or intersection as part of the Plan as a CRALLS. A required roadway improvement that is the subject of a development order condition may not be necessary due to the adoption of a CRALLS. An applicant with a Project that has a development order condition for a roadway improvement or is phased to the unnecessary roadway improvement may request the appropriate governing body to remove the applicable roadway phasing condition. The application may be approved provided that the concurrency reservation (for unincorporated Projects) or determination of the County Engineer (for municipal Projects) has been amended to delete the applicable roadway phasing condition. If a Project has relied upon a CRALLS volume on a roadway and/or intersection to meet the standard, the subsequent subdivision of that 15 of 59

16 Project into separate lots shall still require all parcels or lots in their entirety taken together of that subdivision to be addressed against the standard and any required CRALLS mitigation for the overall Project to be completed by the developers of the separate lots. [Ord ] Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A: LOS D Link Service Volumes Facility Type ADT Peak Hour, Peak Direction Peak Hour Uninterrupted Two Way Class I Class II Flow 2 lanes undivided (1) 2L 15,200 1, ,140 2 lanes one-way 2LO 19,900 2,350 2,120 3 lanes two-way 3L 15,200 1, lanes one-way 3LO 30,200 3,530 3,220 4 lanes undivided (1) 4L 31,500 3,060 1,860 1,680 3,150 4 lanes divided 4LD 33,200 3,220 1,960 1,770 3,320 5 lanes two-way 5L 33,200 3,220 1,960 1,770 6 lanes divided 6LD 50,300 4,880 2,940 2,680 4,980 8 lanes divided 8LD 67,300 6,530 3,940 3,590 4 lanes expressway 4LX 73,600 6,770 3,720 6 lanes expressway 6LX 110,300 10,150 5,580 8 lanes expressway 8LX 146,500 13,480 7, lanes expressway 10LX 184,000 16,930 9,320 [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] Notes: Based on the 2009 FDOT Quality/ LOS Handbook 1. Service volumes for undivided roadways assume exclusive left turn lanes are provided at signalized intersections. If there are no left turn lanes, reduce these values by 20 percent. Table 12.B.2.C-2 1B: LOS D Intersection Thresholds LOS Critical Movement HCM Operational Analysis D 1,400 Greater than 35.0 to 55.0 Seconds of Delay Note: The delay identifies seconds of delay greater than 35.0 and less than or equal to (This space intentionally left blank) 16 of 59

17 Table 12.B.2.C-3 1C: LOS D Speed Thresholds Urban Street Class I II III Range of Free Flow Speeds 55 to 45 miles per hour 45 to 35 miles per hour 35 to 30 miles per hour (FFS) Typical FFS 50 miles per hour 40 miles per hour 35 miles per hour LOS Average Travel Speed (Miles per Hour) D Greater than 21 to 27 Greater than 17 to 22 Greater than 14 to 18 Note: Speed values refer to a range of values that will achieve LOS D. For example speeds greater than 21 but less than or equal to 27 miles per hour will all be LOS D for a Class I roadway. Facility Type Table 12.B.2.C-4 2A: LOS E- Link Service Volumes Peak Hour, Peak Direction ADT Peak Hour Two Way Class I Class II Uninterrupted Flow 2 lanes undivided (1) 2L 16,200 1, ,440 2 lanes one-way 2LO 21,100 2,350 2,240 3 lanes two-way 3L 16,200 1, lanes one-way 3LO 31,900 3,530 3,400 4 lanes undivided (1) 4L 33,300 3,230 1,860 1,780 3,570 4 lanes divided 4LD 35,100 3,400 1,960 1,870 3,760 5 lanes two-way 5L 35,100 3,400 1,960 1,870 6 lanes divided 6LD 53,100 5,150 2,940 2,830 5,650 8 lanes divided 8LD 70,900 6,880 3,940 3,780 4 lanes expressway 4LX 79,400 7,300 4,020 6 lanes expressway 6LX 122,700 11,290 6,200 8 lanes expressway 8LX 166,000 15,270 8, lanes expressway 10LX 209,200 19,250 10,580 [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] Notes: Based on the 2009 FDOT Quality/ LOS Handbook 1. Service volumes for undivided roadways assume exclusive left turn lanes are provided at signalized intersections. If there are no left turn lanes, reduce these values by 20 percent. Table 12.B.2.C-5 2B: LOS E Intersection Thresholds LOS Critical Movement HCM Operational Analysis E 1500 Greater than 55.0 to 80.0 Seconds of delay Note: The delay identifies seconds of delay greater than 55.0 and less than or equal to (This space intentionally left blank) 17 of 59

18 Table 12.B.2.C-6 2C: LOS E Speed Thresholds Urban Street Class I II III Range of Free Flow 55 to 45 miles per hour 45 to 35 miles per hour 35 to 30 miles per hour Speeds (FFS) Typical FFS 50 miles per hour 40 miles per hour 35 miles per hour LOS Average Travel Speed (Miles per Hour) E Greater than 16 Greater than 13 to 17 Greater than 10 to 14 to 21 Note: Speed values refer to a range of values that will achieve LOS D. For example speeds greater than 21 but less than or equal to 27 miles per hour will all be LOS D for a Class I roadway. D. Radius of Development Influence/Project Significance Table 12.B.2.D-7, 3A represents the Radius of Development Influence for the specific volume of the proposed Project s Net Trips. [Ord ] [Ord ] Table 12.B.2.D-7 3A: Radius of Development Influence Net External Peak Hour Two-Way Trip Generation Radius 1 thru 20 Directly accessed link(s) 21 thru miles 51 thru mile 101 thru miles 501 thru 1,000 3 miles 1,001 thru 2,000 4 miles 2,001 and Up 5 miles [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] Table 12.B.2.D-9 3C -Test One Levels of Significance Facility All Links (except I-95 and the Turnpike) I-95/Turnpike Significance Level one percent LOS D within Radius, five five percent LOS D percent LOS D outside Radius [Ord ] Table 12.B.2.D-10 3D - Test Two Levels of Significance Facility All Links (except I-95 and the Turnpike) I-95/Turnpike Significance Level three percent LOS E within Radius, five five percent LOS E percent LOS E outside Radius [Ord ] 1. For Test 1, a Project must address those Links within the Radius of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than one percent of the LOS D of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis AND those Links outside the Radius of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than five percent of the LOS D of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A: LOS D Link Service Volumes. Provided, in all cases, I- 95 and Florida s Turnpike shall be addressed only if Net Trips on these facilities are greater than five percent of the LOS D of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A: LOS D Link Service Volumes. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] 2. For Test 2, a Project must address those Links within the Radius of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than three percent of the LOS E of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-4, 2.A: LOS E Link Service Volumes AND those Links outside the Radius of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than five percent of the LOS E of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-4, 2A: LOS E Link Service Volumes. Provided, in all cases, I-95 and Florida s Turnpike shall be addressed only if Net Trips on these facilities are greater than five percent of the LOS E of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-4, 2.A: LOS E Link Service Volumes. [Ord ] [Ord ] [Ord ] 18 of 59

19 3. Pursuant to section (6), Florida Statutes, any Project which is below the Significance level identified in Tables 12.B.2.D-9 3C on a Link within its Radius of Development Influence that has been identified as ineligible for de minimis exception by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) must still meet the requirements of Test One for that Link. This subsection shall not apply to a Project that consists of one single family home on an existing lot. [Ord ] [Ord ] 4. Transportation Element Policy 1.2-f.41, of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan establishes a temporary CRALLS on certain roadway links for the exclusive use of Projects with insignificant impact on the identified links. In order to meet this Policy, all Projects seeking to use this temporary CRALLs must implement one of the mitigation requirements set forth below: [Ord ] a. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Developer shall pay a one-time mitigation fee of $ 36 per net Project peak hour trip on the affected temporary General CRALLS link or links. If more than one temporary General CRALLS link is impacted by Project traffic, then the cumulative number of Project peak hour trips on all affected links shall be used to calculate the mitigation fee. The mitigation fee rate per net Project peak hour trip is calculated as follows (assuming that the majority of peak hour trips on the roadway are commuter trips to and from work): [Ord ] 1) Annual cost of traffic congestion in South Florida (from 2007 Annual Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute) = $900 per motorist per year. [Ord ] 2) Estimated average length of temporary General CRALLS roadway link = One mile (based upon 2006 year General CRALLS list). [Ord ] 3) Estimated average length of Palm Beach County work trip = 12.5 miles (based upon U.S. Census Journey to Work average time of approximately 25 minutes for Palm Beach County and an average peak hour speed from 2001 National Household Travel Survey of approximately 30 MPH). [Ord ] 4) Project trip length on the affected temporary General CRALLS link is approximately one mile/12.5 miles = 0.08 of the total work trip length. [Ord ] 5) Annual congestion cost of Project peak hour trips on affected temporary General CRALLS link (since these links are identified once every year) = 0.08 x $900 / year = $72/ year. [Ord ] 6) Annual congestion cost of Project peak hour trips attributable to each trip end (either production or attraction) = $72 / year / two = $36/ year [Ord ] These fees shall be deposited in a separate Fee Account for the roadway Link and shall be used to improve mobility on the affected temporary General CRALLS roadway Link. If Palm-Tran or Tri-Rail mass transit service is available within 0.25 mile walking distance of the main on-site building entrance (for non-residential developments) or within an average 0.25 mile walking distance of all housing units (for residential developments), then these fees shall be dispersed to either Palm-Tran or Tri-Rail for free transit passes for Project employees or residents. If no mass transit service is available within the 0.25 mile walking distance, then the fees shall be dispersed to South Florida Commuter Services to fund an ongoing on-site ridesharing program (for nonresidential projects) or other affected General CRALLS link-related transportation demand management improvements (for residential projects), subject to the approval of the County Engineer. [Ord ] b. Develop at a density or intensity which is fifty percent or less of the allowable maximum under the future land use designation. [Ord ]. c. Develop a low generation traffic sensitive Project, which will generate fifty percent or less of the 2- way PM peak hour traffic expected under the general land use category permitted by right for the applicable zoning district (assuming the maximum FAR for non-residential land uses or maximum density for residential land uses). [Ord ] d. Prepay fair share road impact fees in full within six months of the approval of the Project s initial development order or prior to the issuance of the first building permit, whichever shall first occur. [Ord ] e. Provide inter-connectivity between complementary neighboring land uses for both vehicular and pedestrian cross-access. Such interconnectivity shall consist of an access easement on the parcel s plat, or recorded as a restrictive covenant, to ensure the access will remain should redevelopment of the site occur. Prior to final master or site plan approval, the Developer shall obtain a reciprocal access easement or restrictive covenant from the adjacent property owner to complete the inter-connectivity. The development orders of the properties involved shall require the construction of the cross-access. [Ord ] 19 of 59